Talk:Hollow Moon

POV

I find this article to be very biased and needing a major overhaul. - Century0 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hollow Moon actually ISN'T a debunked theory, and this article is full of bias. Refer to the following link to show that more observations via NASA and other astronomers show that it's more likely that the Moon *is* indeed Hollow: (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC) http://www.geocities.com/area51/hollow/8827/moonfacts.html

129.21.144.217 18:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I would expect a conspiracy theorist to have a healthy grasp of the concept of irony, but that link made me laugh. Thanks. Throwaway85

Yeah, I'll stick to the sources already in the articles from Cornell U. and Science Magazine, rather than a list of "facts" (and I emphasize the quotation marks) from geocities. Charles (Kznf) 18:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BAHAHAHA, geocities 'fact' page. What a joke. Funny that it's also a 404 now. Kids, sorry to say, you really have to take the interbutts with about 100 million grains of salt. If you can't think critically, and aren't the least bit skeptical of everything you read, online or off, you need to STFU and sit at the kids table, the grown-ups are trying to have a conversation.

I agree that the article is biased. However nutty or silly the theory may be, wikipedia should remain neutral. The facts alone should suffice in debunking this theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.126.160.31 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the facts indicate that it is *at least* likely that the Moon is hollow. The article is biased, using incomprehensible scientific gibberish to supposedly prove that the Moon cannot be hollow. Moonquakes do not correspond to a dense spherical object, but rather support the idea of a hollow object. Apart from that, the Moon's density does not correspond with it's volume if it is a solid object. The article should state that the case is at least undecided and not push the Hollow Moon Theory in an obscure "conspiracy nut" corner.

Provide a link to a legitimate peer-reviewed article or established scientific organization that supports your claim, or accept the fact that your theory is only held by conspiracy nuts. By the way, there's a hole in your tinfoil hat. I'm picking up your theta-waves on my receiver. You're a dirty, dirty boy. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a ridiculously biased article. It needs a major overhaul. I wanted to find out what the possible reasons for thinking the moon is hollow are and found a terribly stupid article frothing at the mouth, screaming that the whole idea is stupid. Well, maybe, but that isn't the point of a Wikipedia article, is it? A poorly written, poorly researched article with a serious slant. For shame! Gingermint (talk) 10:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The smugness of this article belongs in the paleontology articles. I'm wondering why it doesn't even address the issue of moon responding to impacts by ringing. That would seem to make the simplicity of "no scientific evidence exists to support the idea" a bit overconfident. Unless, of course, reports of the ringing don't exist, in which case, this common misconception still needs to be addressed. AngusCA (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, it's addressed. There's still no scientific evidence to support the idea. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the ringing is addressed, and your last edit is also a step in the right direction to making the article sound less like it's got something to prove. AngusCA (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This article has a major issue - not with POV (WP:FRINGE and all that) but with notability. There's a lot of debunking of a hollow moon hypothesis, but it fails to show that this belief even exists, let alone being big enough to warrant its own article. Kolbasz (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This is definitely a belief of people, including myself. Do you know how hard it would be for our planet to capture a moon of that size. Capture it at the perfect distance for an eclipse. Oh, and then also capture it with a locking rotation so we never see the other side. Impossible. 174.195.32.34 (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Not a belief of just people. This is a credible idea put forth by legitimate scientista. Wikipedia has become a weapon for censorship. This page is locked and no one can offer any correction on piece. It is the reason I stopped donating to Wikipedia 2603:8001:8700:1761:7BBF:A510:2842:BB19 (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hey there. I'm just a volunteer editor, I don't know anything about how funding or donations work, but I do want readers to like the stuff I'm helped to write. I had nothing to with the page being locked, but anyone can propose changes here on talk.

Wikipedia is here to be a "first starting point" for people -- we all know Hollow Moon is considered FRINGE by mainstream sources, and Wikipedia's mission is to summarizes those. If there's a conspiracy to hide something unusual about the moon -- and I'm open to the idea in theory cause I loved the film 2001 -- then we at wikipedia are the VICTIMS of it, not the perpetrators.

Do you have any specific suggestions for improving the article without going so far as to promote the idea that mainstream conclusions suggest the moon is hollow? Feoffer (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race. The use of the word “pseudoscientific” feels incorrect as used in this article. The scientific method can obviously be applied in this case. 74.73.58.224 (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There aren't many circumstances where "pseudoscientific" is more appropriate than efforts to show that a solid body is hollow by using science-y terms and misinterpreting data. It's not "fringe" it's pseudo. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I think that we should delete this article

I am going to wait a few weeks to see if someone cleans up this article, but if this doesn't happen, I'm going to put it up for deletion. If the seismic data is the only evidence that was used to support this theory, then it is just a piece of bad science that was never published. If there is literature of crackpots that subscribe to this theory, then that would be interesting. Lunokhod 14:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I second the idea of Deletion. AfD? --Scorpios 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Turns out there IS a published book about this so called "theory" (Link) (amazon link).Zainker 15:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• When searching for an authoritative debunking of this theory, I came across many, many sites that supported this. More so than were debunking it... I do believe it should be renamed to Hollow Moon myth Charles (Kznf) 15:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree on deleting the article. While I think the theory is silly, I think it's definately notable enough to deserve an article. I think sources pro and con are probably fairly easy to find. I'll make an effort to do so, though help would be appreciated. I've already done some reworking of tghe article to make it more encyclopaedic. --Lendorien 18:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Its a theory, not a myth. 202.12.95.12 07:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an incorrect theory. That's what makes it a myth. Charles (Kznf) 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct or not, it is still a theory. If I remember it correctly, early inaccurate measurements suggested that the Moon is hollow.SuperElephant 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weren't there later measurements that corrected this? And where is the source for the inaccurate measurements? (And before I forget, I have Other reasons for not wanting this page deleted.) Raekuul, bringer of Tropes (He does it without notability) 20:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not a theory, in the scientific sense of the word. A theory is something which explains current observations and predicts future ones. This does neither. Delete this nonsense, or clearly label it for the conspiracy theory it is. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Throwaway, you do not get to determine what a theory is. It is a theory and it should have something about the theory before you and yours go bashing it. This is Wikipedia not a science convention.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 22:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pseudoscientific or not I would like Wikipedia to keep the article, when I find this stuff on late night TV I like to have a place to go read about it. I always look at the Discussion page to see how active they are, more active the more creditable I feel the article is. 68.106.86.206 (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Revert to 4/10/07 version

I just did a massive revert to this version. WP:UNDUE was clearly being violated by implying that there is legitimate, substantive debate on the issue among the scientific community. There is not. The fact that the moon is not hollow is not a matter of debate. This is an article about the myth of the Hollow moon. The origins of the myth, the myth in sci-fi, etc. I appreciate Lendorien's attempt to clean up the havoc caused by 203.54.28.161 but I believe that the article as it existed before his changes did a far better job of not violating WP:UNDUE. Charles (Kznf) 20:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, and I further propose that the exact reasoning you have provided entitles us to edit the Scientology page to relflect its status as a myth and direct product of science fiction.Throwaway85 (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, is this the kind of thinking that produced this ridiculously biased article? Terrible! The article needs a major overhaul. I wanted to find out what the possible reasons for thinking the moon is hollow are and found a terribly stupid article frothing at the mouth, screaming that the whole idea is stupid. Well, maybe, but that isn't the point of a Wikipedia article, is it? A poorly written, poorly researched article with a serious slant. It's this SS mentality that give real scientists a bad name. Gingermint (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Godwin'd 24.144.14.84 (talk) 21:55, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

debunked?

who ever said the hollow moon theory was debunked? the theory was NOT proved or disproved.

This is why this article is cited. See the references from Science Magazine and Cornell University. Charles (Kznf) 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Those references are quite poor. The first one says that the Moon is too heavy to be hollow. That is wrong. We can say that the Moon is not hollow by measuring its Moment of inertia. The second one is completely useless, because the fact that seismic waves can't get through the Moon's interior is the main reason why all those unexplainedmysteriesdotcom sites write about the hollow Moon.SuperElephant 14:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you know more about the history and science than I do. I'd love to see better sources. Charles (Kznf) 14:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to debunk a claim that hasn't met it's burden of proof.

Unscientifically biased

I find it extremely "unscientific" that the author did not write how this theory came into being in the first place. Had s/he done so, it would be much more difficult to be be dismissive about it - as anyone researching it on their own would soon find out.

But is it the role of an encyclopaedia to indirectly promote independent research by obfuscating the whole truth? I think not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.165.110.174 (talk) 13:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Sourcing.

Claiming as representative of scientific thought claims made by conspiracy theory websites (http://www.onelight.com/thei/hollowmoon.html) is not acceptable. I have removed the section in question. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Some support for the hollow moon theory

There are a couple of factoids that tend to support the HMT. First, there's density. From orbital chanracteristics we know the moon has a density overal of approx 3000kg/m^3 whereas the surface rocks obtained by the Apollo program are full of heavy elements with a density in the order of 5000kg/m^3 - which is on a par with the Earth average density, although not Earth surface density. However a natural body should have an increasing density towards the centre because the heavy elements should have sunk to the centre when it was molten - like they did on Earth. (Surface rocks on the Earth tend to be composed of light elements such as silicon and aluminum while lunar surface rocks are composed of heavy elements such as titanium, uranium and iron as well as the lighter elements.) So the moon is too light, there's missing mass.

The second problem is crater depth. There's no vulcanism on the moon, all craters are the result of meteor impact. Small/slow meteors make little craters while big/fast meteors make large craters. However the large craters are wider but not deeper! At least above a certain size. Crater depth and width is proportional until the crater is about five miles across and then the bigger craters are wider but not deeper. This tends to indicate a very high density "shell" about five miles below the rocky surface of the moon. The big/fast meteors are ploughing through the rocky surface and hitting a shell, possibly made of titanium, and maybe a hundred miles thick. There is even some indication of "splash back" off the shell with little peaks at the centre of large craters which we don't see in terrestral meteor craters.

Obviously a high density shell below the moon's crust makes the overall weight of the moon even more problematic and indicates internal voids, ie hollowness.

A proper debunking of the HMT would need to address these two issues.

(It goes without saying, I think, that if the moon is hollow it is also artificial.)

Darmot and gilad (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

From the Encyclopedia Britannica, Most of the knowledge about the lunar interior has come from the Apollo missions and from robotic spacecraft, including Galileo, Clementine, and Lunar Prospector, which observed the Moon in the 1990s. Combining all available data, scientists have created a picture of the Moon (see figure) as a layered body comprising a low-density crust, which ranges from 60 to 100 km (40 to 60 miles) in thickness, overlying a denser mantle, which constitutes the great majority of the Moon’s volume. At the centre there probably is a small iron-rich metallic core with a radius of about 350 km (250 miles) at most. At one time, shortly after the Moon’s formation, the core had an electromagnetic dynamo like that of Earth (see geomagnetic field), which accounts for the remanent magnetism observed in some lunar rocks, but it appears that such internal activity has long ceased on the Moon. Saros136 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

So I don't see any remaining issues to be addressed to debunk the HMT. Saros136 (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there were any to begin with. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

There remains the issue of meteor crater depth. Darmot and gilad (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's debatable. While you state that there is no vulcanism on the Moon now, there certainly was in the past. Given that it is thought that there was significant volcanic events which basically "filled-in" much of the impact craters with basalt rock, that is a good counter-argument to the "shallow crater" idea.

Having said that, I would actually like to see these sorts of arguments presented in the article -- along with references -- so that the theory can be properly documented on the page. While I think the theory is bunk, it had a number of adherents over the years and the idea made appearances in a number of Science Fiction stories, primarily before the advent to the Space Age. I think it is worth documenting from a historical standpoint if nothing else. Captmondo (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with presenting the arguments is that the arguments themselves need to come from reliable sources. There aren't any reliable sources putting forth these arguments, and so they can't be included. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The is not an article on the debunking of the Hollow Moon Theory, it is SUPPOSED to be an article on the Theory, as is there is NOTHING about the theory itself. If certain persons on this page do not stop their vandalism in their constant revision then I will have the page restored and locked.--209.213.220.227 (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. This is supposed to be an article on the theory, and reasons which support the theory. Why are some people so adamant to actually suppress speculative theories? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.37.109 (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As batshit crazy as the "theory" and its proponents are, you're absolutely right. Somebody coming to this page trying to find out what the Hollow Moon Theory is would get no help whatsoever, and instead merely be told that it's bogus. It's fine to have the scientific debunking here (indeed we must per WP:NPOV, but we also need to talk about what the theory is, what it claims, and the purported evidence behind those claims. We don't have to give it any validity, but we *do* have to do the reader the service of actually describing the subject. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

"a hypothesis proposing that Earth's Moon is either wholly hollow or otherwise contains a substantial interior space" - that sentence from the intro seems to very succinctly describe the theory. What else could there be, I wonder? I mean, *is* there any real proponent of the "theory" or is is just vague idea that somebody put into literature? It's not like Hollow Earth, which has a long history ... is it? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Some Support

http://www.redicecreations.com/specialreports/2006/01jan/moon.html

Not the best source. But this idea has been around for a while. Why do physicists like it but astronomers hate it? No use in looking those sorts of opinions up... no one wants to go on record. At any rate, we have the "Con" side in this article, now someone needs to write the "Pro" side. Gingermint (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

False dichotomy, man - there is no "pro" side, not with any actual facts behind it. That's why "no one wants to go on record" - there's no record to go on. Just as they don't want to go on the record supporting the existence of fairies or a flat earth. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Clearly most of this article [one could argue the article itself] was created or written with an ideological lineup to address, by way of characterization, as opposed to neutral narration. This article hasn't much to do with the HMT at all, rather, evidence to its contrary. This evidence would make an excellent section with a link to an entirely separate article all together. Doing this, along with incorporating concurring evidence [which exists in profound solidity], would concentrate the meat and potatoes of the article, along with giving it a purer purpose. Leave the editorialites to Ivy league websites. This is wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.57.25 (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

should there be a new template for things like this

Maybe there should be a bright red highlighted bar that announces that this article and articles like this are only barely notable as public opinion and lack reputable citation; and are only separated from fiction storytelling by the presentation of being real. though, maybe any article deserving of my suggested template should be the pathway to a speedy deletion template as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:773:900:957E:F097:BBD1:D21A (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion (or lack thereof) was to merge Bromley86 (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

---

We currently have a Spaceship Moon Theory article that has 4 short paras introducing/describing it and then a Criticisms section that's effectively duplicated here (in greater detail). Anyone think of a reason why the Spaceship Moon article shouldn't be merged? I'm quite surprised it's not been discussed before. Bromley86 (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Couple more days and then I'll merge, if no one objects. Bromley86 (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll likely add in this Jason Colavito source that was supplied over on WP:RSN. Bromley86 (talk) 03:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Accretion disk source?

Currently we have the statement: Hollow Moon adherents can be broadly grouped in two major camps, neither of which is considered by the scientific community to be supported by evidence: The Moon's formation process produced a hollow sphere through natural means. Details vary widely; the proposed mechanism is usually an undefined or pseudoscientific factor in accretion-disk dynamics.

Anyone got a published, if not-necessarily scientific, source for the accretion disk point? Everything I've read on hollow moon has taken the tack that it's a spaceship/station, or that it's nice and solid. Bromley86 (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Vasin-Shcherbakov

The issue that the article was published in was apparently the July 1970 one, but I've not founds a reliable source for that. So the article just mentions 1970, but I'm mentioning it here in case it's useful down the line. Bromley86 (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This section also contains not accurate information. The article in Sputnik is a reprint of an earlier article published in Soviet newspaper "Komsomolskaya Pravda" on the January, 10th, 1968. The authors are Mikhail Khvastunov (pen name Mikhail Vasiliev and Rem Shcherbakov. Neither of them has any affiliation with the USSR Academy of Sciences in any way whatsoever. They were both just science journalists of "Komsomolskaya Pravda". SilversmithUA (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

"Sceptical author Jason Colavito points out that all of their evidence is circumstantial, and that, in the 1960s, the atheistic Soviet Union promoted the ancient astronaut concept in an attempt to undermine the West's faith in religion"Who is Jason Colavito and what kind of article is this and what is the connection between religions and the concepts of ancient astronauts, which was not supported in the USSR for the most part and was only the opinion of individual scientists and publicists Цйфыву (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollow Moon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll take this on. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

General comments

• The references are in more than one format, with names variously as "Forename Surname", as "Surname, AB", or as "A. Surname". Personally I'd recommend a standardized "Surname, Forename" but any one format will do.

Done - only one ref was last/first, so I went with author Bromley86 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• I suppose the named books in the "In literature" section are approximately self-citing, but it would be better at least to provide definite page ranges (in a blue-numbered reference), and best to cite a reliable source which comments on the fact that each book mentions a hollow moon.

Done - rm section, as it's OR (can't find a RS that discusses their mentions of a hollow moon) Bromley86 (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Specific comments

• There's one "dubious - discuss" tag which needs to be sorted out.

Done - followed advice of editor that added tag and called it a fringe theory. I do not have any reference for this, as sources tend to refer to it as a conspiracy theory (the article reflects this), so I've added a note to avoid problems down the line. Bromley86 (talk) 05:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

• Nosov's novel title should begin with a capital letter.

Not necessary - section removed, so now unnecessary. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• The SI units for polar moment of inertia (m⁴) should be supplied after each usage (each value).

Not done - none of the sources, which are heavyweight academic ones, mention the units, so I would be very reluctant to do so. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please wikilink "density" and replace the units in the "Density" section with kg/m³.

Partial done - I didn't wl the first mention of density, as that was just conversational, whereas wling the mention in the Density section is useful. I didn't convert the units from those given in the source, as that could cause confusion, but did sup. Will convert if required. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• The "In literature" section is currently formatted as a list. This would be better as continuous prose. It should also be expanded and cited to discuss each usage rather than merely asserting it.

Not necessary - section previously removed as not presented in RS. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please wikilink "Phobos".

Done Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• The lead needs to be extended slightly to reflect the article's contents. I'd suggest adding the dates that both Hollow Moon and Hollow Earth first appeared.

Done Halley and Wells' dates now in Lead. Bromley86 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• The "Density" section does not exactly explain how the Moon can have a density of only 3.3kg/m³. Perhaps what is needed is a short cited statement that this is the density of such-and-such types of rock.

Done - McGeddon addressed this after the review.[1] Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• The heading "Arguments advanced in support" does not exactly match that section's contents; perhaps something like "Arguments for and against" or "Claims and rebuttals" would fit better.

Done - Claims and rebuttals. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• "of the what was then" - please remove the stray "the".

Done - IP editor fixed post-review. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Please remove the empty External links section.

Done - FockeWulf FW 190 removed post-review. Bromley86 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

The images are suitable for the article and are PD.

The prose is suitable for GA.

The article is correctly structured.

Australian hollow moon theory

• Australian hollow moon theory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.128.28 (talk) 02:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing

Nom has not replied to any communication, so I'm closing this now. If anyone wishes to take up the reins, they are welcome to ping me and I expect we can quickly bring this article to GA status. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, took a big break from WP. Thanks for reviewing. Back now and addressing the points; will ping you when it's ready. Bromley86 (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Chiswick Chap. The article's all good to go, when you have a chance. Bromley86 (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Bromley86 OK, I suggest you renominate it (the old GA1 is now closed) and I can then swiftly complete the review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap. Cheers, done. Bromley86 (talk) 07:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hollow Moon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:01, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead now much improved, thank you.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I have restored the 'In literature' section which cites at least 4 major authors and is plainly a large part of the justification for the article (Edmond Halley notwithstanding). The section is probably usable as it is, given that the sources are cited, but it would be much improved with a source that discussed the book mentions (i.e. 2ndry wrt the books).
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problem.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Both images from Commons correctly licensed. The author of the Halley portrait seems to be unknown, which ought to be stated explicitly on Commons.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	I wikilinked the caption of the schematic.
	7. Overall assessment.	With the improvements made, as recorded both in GA1 and GA2, I'm now satisfied that the article meets the criteria to become a Good Article.

Did the best I could re. reffing the books. Only 2 were available online, and one of those was lacking page numbers; I used the chapter ref for that. Links point to page/chapter. All have secondary: recycled the Nasa cite for Wells & Burroughs (which is the closest I've found to a secondary source covering multiple entries), rest have their own.

Dunno on the Moon was a hard one. It's a Russian (Soviet) book that's not been translated, so it's hard to track down. The WP page on it is quite thorough, and clearly refers to a substantially hollow moon: In a cave Dunno falls into an icy tunnel leading down to the internal cavity of the moon and slides down, apparently sitting down, thereon in the sublunary space. Going down on a parafoil, he finds on the inner core of the moon (which the locals call the Earth, too) with the civilization of the same shorties, but living according to the laws of capitalism. The secondary source talks about a technologically advanced civilisation inside the Moon. Bromley86 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hollow Moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221063318/http://scripts.mit.edu/~paleomag/articles/60_03_Wieczorek_etal.pdf to http://scripts.mit.edu/~paleomag/articles/60_03_Wieczorek_etal.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

The claims of the Russian scientists that the moon is hollow or partly hollow rely heavily on the fact that the moon's smaller craters and its larger craters ARE NEARLY EQUAL IN DEPTH, which defies the physics of a natural, solid planetary body. Larger meteors should create larger AND DEEPER impact craters, as can be seen on Mars and on the Earth as well. There was never any claim that the larger meteors that created the larger craters were breaking through the crust and hitting something underneath; the claim was that the small and large craters being approximately equal in depth COULD BE EXPLAINED BY A LIMITED CRUST THICKNESS OF ABOUT 20 MILES, SURROUNDING A HOLLOW INNER CORE. The statement that "there is no scientific evidence" of a hollow moon is patently incorrect, since the NASA collected seismic readings are themselves evidence of the possibility of a partially hollow body. The writer mentions that Apollo 12 directed the lunar lander to crash on the moon's surface in order to obtain the seismic response, but no mention is made of the fact that the following mission, Apollo 14, directed the even larger rocket booster to crash on the moon in order to obtain further readings, at the request of Werner Von Braun. The seismic readings of that crash experiment resulted in even more extensive ringing, for a period of about 3 hours. There is no good explanation for the moon's seismic readings, given the current understanding of a solid moon constructed mainly of basalt, which material readily absorbs impact and therefore does not easily transmit shock waves (that result in ringing). The editor will notice that the current article is misleading in the ways that I've outlined here, misstates a number of facts, and implies there is no reason to question the nature of the Earth's moon, either for NASA or for the many astrophysicists who are doing just that. The facts about the matter should at least be stated without prejudice. 12.33.29.132 (talk) 03:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If this is an edit request rather than just opening of a discussion, please point to realible sources and word your request on the form "please change X to Y". – Thjarkur (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

in "in literature" in the david weber entry, please change Empire from the Ashes (2003) to Mutineers'_Moon (1991) because it was published first under this title; the later book is just a re-issue. the article for Mutineers' Moon is better too.

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

To do/Notes to Self

• Need sharper contrast between "Spaceship Moon" (fringe nonsense) and Giant-impact hypothesis.  Done
• Need sharper contract between Pre-modern hollow bodies speculation (once hard sci-fi) vs mid-20th century fringe.  Done
• Summarize Hollow Earth? No
• Section on the pre-apollo non-fringe debates about moon composition?  Done
• Hollow Phobos hypothesis add better link, but otherwise okay
• The Sentinel (1948) and 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) in fiction section  Done
• debunk solar/lunar angular diameter coincidence if merited by RS  Done
• 1961 instance of Hollow Moon Conspiracy Theory [2] There's something here, but how to get at it? Maybe discuss the earlier "Dark Side" conspiracy theories. July 4, 1947 instance of Dark Side CT -- Flying Saucers come from Dark Side [3]
• 1965, theoretical calculation yields 'absurd' conclusion that moon might be hollow, rejected [4] [5] Explicitly refuted [6]  Done
• 1965, Asimov article "What Can We Expect of The Moon?", later cited by CTs [7] skippable
• 1965 Asimov Heavenly Zoo later quoted by CTs without caveats. Of Time And Space 4. The Heavenly Zoo, cited by Don Wilson in 1970s  Done
• 1968 - "Hollow Moon Paradox" resolved -- theoretical error discovered throwing off lunar Moment of Inertial calculations since 1959. [8]  Done
• 1968 - Mass concentrations discovered ?? maybe we skip this.
• 1969 - Apollo 12 lander intentionally crashed yields longer duration quakes than predicted, headlines debunk claims this suggests hollowness. [9]  Done
• 1997 - Jim Marrs Alien Agenda -- Perfect Solar Eclipse[10]  Done
• Lunar Prospector DGE  Done
• 1999 - RS on perfect solar? [11]  Done
• anthropic & perfect solar - who? [12]  Done
• Prometheus also has same ratio [13]  Done
• Clarke or Sagan or similar on perfect solar? IT was Asimov  Done
• Prose section on CT evolution

Feoffer (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Great list. I don't think we need to summarize hollow Earth, though - a quick mention of it is enough, I think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Minor suggestion: I think you can trim the Asimov quote - it takes up a ton of screen. I'd kill the third graf, at the very least. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022

Internal structure "Multiple lines of evidence disprove that the Moon is hollow.[38}"

The footnote cited does not support this statement. Please find better evidence, or remove this unsubstantiated opinion. Thank you.

footnote 38 "About the Ask an Astronomer Team". Ask an Astronomer. Cornell University. 14 November 2011. Archived from the original on 4 February 2015. 64.231.165.99 (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Ref added. Feoffer (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2022 (2)

Footnote 1 link is broken.

Here is the correct link: https://armaghplanet.com/is-the-moon-hollow.html

64.231.165.99 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC) 64.231.165.99 (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you! Feoffer (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Should there be a wikilink to the Hollow Earth article?

Is there any specific reason why there is no wikilink to the Hollow Earth article other than at the very bottom in the categories template? If there isn’t, should we add one? Maybe not to the first two mentions of “a hollow Earth,” which essentially means “an Earth that is hollow,” but at least to the third use of the phrase, specifically mentioning the Hollow Earth theory itself.

I think that I’ve read this entire talk page, and I only see a few mentions regarding the theory of Hollow Earth, such as the need to describe the theory in greater detail and the decision that no such summary is necessary, yet I see no mention of needing a wikilink, nor any mention of why such a wl has been omitted. As per MOS:BTW I believe that this would help future readers who are not knowledgeable of this theory, and who might be interested in learning more about at least one of the similar fringe theories that, while seemingly ludicrous to most, are still believed to be true by a portion of society.

I think it would seem likely that they would be interested in doing so, if for no other reason than the fact that they are here reading about a Hollow Moon in the first place. I know that I would have if I had not already read that article a while ago. Sykoskit (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out. Excellent suggestion. Feoffer (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a “conspiracy”

There are no suggestions that there is a world-wide plot by thousands of scientists over decades to deliberately mislead the public. In accord with the dictionary definition and common use of the term conspiracy theory, the article should replace the phrase in all instances with something more accurate (e.g., disproven theory or disproven hypothesis). Calling the hollow moon theory a conspiracy undermines the veracity of the article (not every disproven theory or hypothesis is a conspiracy). Finally, the fact that some do not believe the evidence does not make them think the scientists are engaging in a conspiracy- they just continue to assert that the scientists are wrong despite the best evidence is to the contrary. 72.81.222.57 (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't describe Hollow Moon as a CT, it's an obsolete scientific theories that has been incorporated into CTs of Marrs and Icke. Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lukebbaldwin (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Hapalex (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

In this paragraph under "Introduction" the word "a" should be removed.

Orignal: Both Hollow Moon and Hollow Earth are now considered to be a fringe theories or conspiracy theories.

Edited: Both Hollow Moon and Hollow Earth are now considered to be fringe theories or conspiracy theories.

AND

This last bullet point of the "Origin of The Moon" heading in the "Scientific Perspective" section should be reworded for clarity.

Original: The Moon is depleted in volatile elements compared to Earth. Vaporizing at comparably lower temperatures, they could be lost in a high-energy event, with the Moon's smaller gravity unable to recapture them while Earth did.

Edit: The Moon is depleted in volatile elements compared to Earth. Volatile elements vaporize at relatively low temperatures, and could be lost in a high-energy event. The Earth's gravitational pull would have been powerful enough to recapture these elements, but the Moon's smaller gravity would have been too weak to do so.

There is also no citation for the above, so I couldn't check to see if those terms are even right lol. Thanks! TheWhitewasher (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for the suggestions! Feoffer (talk) 22:26, 5 June 2023 (UTC)